Book review by Jeffrey Steinberg of The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq, by Peter Eisner and Knut Royce.

The Italian Letter provides the most comprehensive non-classified account to date of the role of the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC), in fueling the Iraq nuclear hoax. Not only was WINPAC chief Alan Foley a full partner in the White House neo-con campaign to justify the war with the frightening image of nuclear "mushroom clouds"—he colluded with NSC arms control officer Dr. Robert Joseph in penning the now infamous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, citing British reports that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Foley frankly admitted to colleagues, as reported in The Italian Letter, that he knew prior to the Iraq invasion that there would be no WMD found there. Foley, according to the authors, was one CIA "careerist" who shamelessly sold out to White House policy-makers who were hell-bent on war, and only wished to see intelligence that bolstered the case for invasion. Given that the entire rationale for war centered around the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of obtaining a nuclear bomb, Foley's failure to "speak truth to power" was a colossal sellout.

Reprinted from Executive Intelligence Review, May 25, 2007, Vol. 34, No. 21

More from the article: Much of the speculation centered around the person of Michael Ledeen, the self-professed "universal fascist," who had a long history of collusion with the Italian spook circles described by authors Eisner and Royce as the "deviated service," a parallel corrupt intelligence apparatus, penetrated into every level of the SISMI and other Italian intelligence services. The "deviated service" overlapped the Propaganda Two (P2) Freemasonic Lodge of former wartime Nazi/Fascist operative Licio Gelli, who, to this day, is alive and active in the sewers that link elements of the Italian security services with extreme right-wing political circles that yearn for the return of "Il Duce."

Originally from LaRouche's Latest on May 26, 2007, 5:34pm


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.